muhuk

Or perhaps he thought he'd be sanctioning the demonization if he kept silent. If I had a fear, like they're out to get me, I would probably not make a speech that would potentially make `them` angry.

This was the exact phrase used: Wolfgang was not only a mindless automaton, he seems to have not deserved the payment Franz supposedly made. Because all that work was Franz's. Unless you happen to think: ----- I don't have a lot to add to the debate right now. But I'd like say that I anticipate; either the subject will start to drift towards the practical applications of IP or there will be a brand new hypothetical scenario where the same pro-IP arguments will be presented.

Please don't patronize me. Do you mean the person in the first example is rational? If yes, what is the difference? Why can't the person who concludes that selfishness is evil be rational from his own perspective, on account to his limited knowledge? If the person in the first example is not rational, then what is your point?

I am in no position to tell you (or anyone else) how to behave. But I believe I have the right to point out that judgements about persons do not pass as valid arguments in a debate on principles. "Seriously?" is not a counter argument. I can respond to pretty much everything you write with that. But instead I do my best to explain my position. I can't do much if you are not seeing the point of that analogy. It seems you realize it's outrageous. It's outrageous because I intended it to be so. I wish you could also understand the underlying principle.

From SOFTWARE ENGINEERS DON’T DESERVE ANTITRUST WINDFALL: I understand in a free market, employers have the right to hire and fire as they please. And I also understand that they would want to collude and try to avoid market rates raising above what's comfortable for them. I agree that the checks plaintiffs will receive is not earned. But, if you think this is ethically OK, isn't it at all dishonest towards the employees? (I am uncertain, and genuinely curious. But...) I don't agree with this. Plaintiffs are acting for their self interests. In a health-care society where private practice is strictly prohibited, are you supposed to refuse treatment and die?

What difference does it make if someone says they have been an Oist for 50 years or 5000 years in my profile? I makes absolutely not difference in the validity of their arguments. This is clearly an ad hominem. You just want to imply they're dishonest. You can believe anything you like. But where did you offer an actual argument in this thread? All I can find is questions and more questions. If someone is making assertions and you don't agree with them, instead of asking questions that will lead nowhere, perhaps you can offer counter-arguments and demonstrate that their assertions are false. Agreed. I was hoping someone would respond to this:

@tadmjones I won't try to respond the entirety of your post, because it has too many embellishments and implicit assumptions. But I will respond one clear statement I can find in it, I hope that's OK: If you make children, you do not own them. But you are the originator, the creator if you will. Well, co-creator. If you come up with an idea, it is your idea, you are the originator, (maybe) the creator. But you do not own the idea in the same sense you own a car. If you owned your children, you'd have the right to kill them. But thank FSM you do not own children or people in general.

The invention of computer, or manufacturing of computers, or invention or manufacture of anything else does not make lead more or less scarce. Lead is scarce because there's only so much of it in the universe any given time. The second meaning you mention is, I think, the property of identity. ----- I have seen thoughts (as actions) being confused as ideas (as concepts) in these threads. Ideas do have identity, but thoughts refer to ideas. So thoughts are not necessarily unique by their content if they refer to the same idea.

This is hardly current events. The lady who got the rug thrown away made a loud exit later. It turned into a PR nightmare for GitHub. There seems to be some wrongdoing but the claim of sexism is yet to be substantiated. I said this then, and I'm still behind my words: More gems of modern feminism here and here. And of course misogyny doesn't exist, so kill all men!

I know I asked you to not be sarcastic and all. So I have to refrain from it myself. But questions like this make it really difficult. I have just explained the concept of scarcity as I would explain it to a 5 year old, and as a reply to that you are asking this question. All I can say is that I'm very frustrated right now. I didn't say anything about other people using your property. I have observed that you were having trouble with the concept of property and I tried, and apparently failed, to explain it to you.

And I took it exactly in that spirit. And I'd like to think I have given a straightforward answer. Yes, I said something to the effect if Ayn Rand lived today she might have had different opinions on IP. I said this because these changes are paradigm changing. 50 years ago it would be a foolish thing to suggest an author to self publish, now it's at least viable and (arguably) a better strategy for certain markets. But let's please not get into the practical details of the application of IP. Because there's a more fundamental thing to be said: People against IP do not deny that Ayn Rand had said things in favor of IP. Ayn Rand defined property rights exclusively over material entities. (See #91) Given 1 and 2, Ayn Rand contradicts with herself. IP enables the initiation of force against people exercising their (material) property rights. 4 is a contratiction. (If you are anti-IP and you think these do not represent your argument, please feel free to tell me to shut up.) So @tadmjones you are right, but let's forget about what I said in another thread. Let's address these points.

Ayn Rand was very explicit to define property rights over material objects (see #91). Isn't this enough to explain it from the point of view of Objectivism? Also this: I think you are asking all the wrong questions here: Look at this from this perspective: If you have a sandwich and you eat is. You have exercised your right on your property. But now it's consumed. If you have an idea and you use it for whatever, you still have that idea. If you have a patch of land and you rent it for 50 years. You can't do anything else with it during that time. If you have an idea and you use it this morning, you can use it again in the afternoon! If you have a car and you drive it to work. Your wife needs to find other means of transportation. The car can't be in two places. If you have an idea and you use it for yourself. Then you can share it with your wife and she can apply it. Guess what? You can still continue to utilize that idea. So can your wife. It is not economics. It's the difference in nature, difference between mental entities and material entities.

It's a reference to this: Namely, refusing to provide actual arguments and asserting that the truth will be revealed if a certain undefined[*] action to be performed. *: Google search? Which google search? Google doesn't even show the same results for the exact same query to different people.

Any idea can be viewed as seperate from other ideas. Any idea is different than any other idea except itself. Even if the difference between two ideas are infinitesimal, they would still be unique with respect of each other. So your question: ...becomes: (Emphasis mine.) Here is my answer: why, not. I would recognize an idea as an existent or entity. Ayn Rand seems to agree with me on this: However, your other question: I still say no, ideas cannot be owned. And if that statement is too jarring; the concept of ownership cannot be applied to ideas. And if that statement is too strawmanish or google-treasurehunt-worthy; the concept of ownership can only be applied to material objects. 3 ways of saying the same thing. This is my honest and straightforward answer. I'd be happy to expand on anything that doesn't make sense.

Right. But you forgot appeal to googleTM. ----- As a reader I had no difficulty reading howardowski's replies, it wouldn't make a difference for me if they'd be compiled into 2 or 3 longer replies. I am just saying.

You might be onto something there. Yes, that's the argument. ----- Maybe. But we have a disagreement in principle here. A discussion of practical applications and consequences would only be beneficial if we had an agreement at an abstract level. I assume you'd agree that nationalization is immoral. What would your response be if somebody made a case for nationalization by citing the supposed benefits of certain real world applications? ----- Also you haven't addressed any of my questions in #108. Was I wrong to think that you knew what you were talking about?

I am not convinced. Even if we were living in a communist society, wouldn't we arrive the conclusion that we own our bodies? And therefore wouldn't be able to reach the principle of property rights? Reality does not change when you change the social context. Reality is not created by social context. Neither do principles. I think you are trying to steer the discussion from an abstract, principles level to a more practical level and discuss the applications and practical consequences of IP. But you are making a big mistake by implying that principles change based on social context (the `yes` part of your answer). The politics of IP might be an interesting subject. But the main question here is; is IP part of Objectivism, or is Objectivism compatible with IP.

What difference does it make? Do (material) property rights cease to exist in a primitive society or a communist one? Are certain principles, like IP, dependent upon the context? I would say, if IP is valid, it would be equally valid in any context of society. It might not have been respected and implemented as law, but as a principle it would have been valid.

This is what I said: This is what you're responding to:

Here is what I said: Is it possible two people holding opposite views and both being rational? No. That would be a contradiction. Is it possible for someone to realize that he/she is being irrational and still hold his position unchanged? No, not if she/he has genuinely seen his/her irrationality. @Eiuol, not everyone holds onto their irrational views, no matter what. Some people have the intellectual depth to recognize when they are shown their views are invalid and have the maturity to acknowledge that they were mistaken. Yes, I admit that I think I am rational. I feel no guilt or shame for that.

Since Wolfgang didn't make that piano, he shouldn't take pride in his work. He was a mindless drone, no better than a robotic arm programmed to make pianos. This quote expresses the point I'm trying to make more eloquently:

I asked for a definition and you gave me an example. When you used this phrase, I assumed you knew that those adjectives, in the context of ideas, mean and that you were not using them purely as embellishments. That phrase implies and idea that is identifiable and discrete and unique. Therefore should be able to categorize any given idea in (up to) 8 categories. According your statement. I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just trying to understand the question. According to this, an idea can be discrete and another idea can be not discrete. And idea can be unique and another one can be not unique (banal?). What makes an idea discrete/unique/identifiable? I understand if I give you an example idea you are qualified to slot it into one of those 8 categories. How do you do that? What is the objective measure of an idea?

If there was such a description, and it was so easy to find out, you would simply quote it. Every time you assert that I am wrong without any reasoning you are just affirming that you simply have no arguments left. (So, I sincerely hope you will keep doing it)

I restrain myself to not be snarky, and it's not easy. But if we go down that road it won't end well. Also I usually see socratic used when patronizing is meant. So, please don't. What do you exactly mean by discrete idea? And what do you exactly mean by unique idea? Edits in blue.

You don't owe me a response. But since you care so much about what the audience thinks, perhaps you might want to consider that:they will also find out who flees after realizing he's made a claim he can't substantiate. And my response that Objectivism defines property as exclusively material. And your response so far is "you are wrong because I say so". I actually expect those debating me to have the intellectual integrity to admit they are wrong when they realize they are wrong.